Yes very. I am just so sad at our msm for making the story about Metiria as opposed to the utterly oppressive benefit regime. Benefit abatement was the issue which I suspect few nzers understand. I had no awareness of it at all until I read the Big Kahuna. Neither was I aware that super payments were higher than the unemployment benefit. That is beyond ridiculous. Surely a young adult looking for work needs more food and clothing than a retired adult? We so needed the conversation and particularly in an election year.

I hope the two guys will publicise their views of the situation. I wouldn't put it past the lefties who still control the party to try and eliminate their right to do so. Could be a re-run of the schism that destroyed Values, if their position reflects the view of the majority of the party. Russel Norman's conference straw poll produced a two-to-one majority of the real greens over the leftists, but extrapolating that microcosm to the entire membership is a bit of a statistical stretch.

Nevertheless, the consensus process that has prevailed since the party origin in 1990 has finally fractured at the very top of the hierarchy. An historic occurence! Metiria will inevitably get the blame for catalysing the bad timing, and any drop in poll support for the Greens, but whether that is appropriate depends on the caucus decision to authorise and support her leadership stance. Or the lack thereof. If she briefed them fully, and they agreed to support her, they have no moral basis to resign that I can see. If she didn't, it's her problem - suddenly grown vastly greater than earlier today.

I'm more famliar with Kennedy Graham than David Clendon, and he's pretty clearly a blue-Green. On the other hand, Metiria Turei is self-evidently a red-Green. Making a "red" issue central to their campaign has proved riskier than perhaps she expected. She got a lot of publicity and largely set the agenda for a week, but I can understand why bluer-Greens would feel more and more pissed off about the direction things were going.As a Green party member, I'm seriously pissed off by the way this disagreement has been made public. I suspect that the leadership decided to call the two MP's bluff, and it backfired.

The party is understood to be furious at how the two MPs have handled it - going outside normal parliamentary channels to tell media of their plans.

And so they fucking should. If true (and apply salt and tequila to taste) the most shocking thing is how common it is. Every three years, every single party has its share of sulking, muttering and foot-stamping trantrums from folks who aren't happy their egos didn't get put sufficiently high up the list. Most have the good sense to either suck it up, or at least throw their tiaras behind closed doors.

But Grilled Jeebus, if folks think Meteria doesn't have the political smarts to organise a piss-up in an organic craft brewery, Graham and Clendon haven't exactly displayed top-shelf nous today.

"Hey, let's threaten to quit six weeks from the election unless THAT WOMEN resigns from the leadership of the party. What could possibly go wrong?"

The rats in the ranks got hit with shovels. Hard. Find it impossible to muster any sympathy.

Excellent analysis, Trevor. I feel the same. Essentially, we have a failure of political management at the top level of the party. I'm not blaming James. It will go down to how the consensus decision-making process was conducted. The party has rules that define how the process is supposed to work. I helped design them, and drafted them on my computer at home when I was convenor of the GP Standing Orders Committee long ago.

The key point I'm seeing now is how their decision can be justified in relation to our charter principle requiring appropriate decision-making. Anyone who thinks hijacking the political agenda and shifting it to the far left is appropriate is a moron. It's disrespectful to all centrists. It's driven by the sectarian mind-set that prevents the left from acting in our common interests. Partisan. Those in the GP driving this prioritisation of the need to represent beneficiaries rather than other green voters have clearly lost the plot. This election will be decided by swing-voters. They are centrists. Metiria & her supporters are in denial. If they really believe the hijack will work as a political strategy to change the government, they're also delusional.

Espiner once again won't let people finish a sentence - in his myopic quest for one word answers - or just the answer he wants., irrespective.He is getting past his use-by-date.Fast becoming a Hosking-light.

He would extract more by leaving silences for interviewees to fill rather than whipping himself into a frenzy on his perceived 'home stretch'.

Is the Green Party legally committed to its Party List at this point? ie. Would it be relying on David Clendon and Kennedy Graham to be refusing to accept their election if the GP achieved enough votes for them to enter parliament? Or does it still have time to amend its list?

Meanwhile Hooton's just been on RNZ tearing into Turei alongside Mike Williams (nice to see that commentary about the Greens from some neutral Nat and Labour insiders), then suggesting that it'd be a good idea for Clendon and Graham to be in talks with TOP, and create an incentive for Grant Robertson to step aside in Wellington Central and give his support to TOP's Geoff Simmons.

The strategy around Turei confessing to having lied to Winz started promisingly, bringing a poll boost and to a large degree prompting the conversation about welfare she sought. But it became unwieldy, and tipped over into further revelations around an electoral roll breach. What seems as extraordinary as anything is that the strategy could have gone ahead without the full buy-in of caucus. There’s only 14 of them.

then suggesting that it’d be a good idea for Clendon and Graham to be in talks with TOP, and create an incentive for Grant Robertson to step aside in Wellington Central and give his support to Geoff Simmons (TOP).

I read that last night and was surprised that Toby Manhire seems to think it's horrible for Labour on the grounds that centre-voters will think it looks bad. My impression had been the opposite.

As far as I've been able to tell, Labour's been losing support to the Green Party on one side, but also to the likes of Nat/NZF because those people are terrified of the Green Party having too much influence on Labour.

If the Green Party's having such obvious problems, wouldn't the expected movement be for people to come back to Labour from both sides instead of merely from the Greens?

Hooton's RNZ rant was a series of fantasies, unchallenged because Ryan is off today and Mike Williams might as well have been. I lost count at about five (TOP, Robertson, Clendon's ethnicity, reversing Richardson's cuts, Greens 5% ... maybe a unicorn in the studio too?).

I happen to know that Ardern will get 90% of the vote, can I have a long monologue on Nine to Noon?